Who writes this, and what we stand behind.

Everything we publish carries a name and a date. When we get something wrong we say so, in public, where we said it. This page is the standard we hold ourselves to.

Last updated 3 August 2026

We would rather publish less and mean it than fill a blog to a schedule. These are the rules our insights, case notes and guidance are written to.

Everything is written by a named person

Every article credits the practitioner who wrote it, by name, alongside the date it went live. No house voice, no ghostwritten byline, no anonymous “team” attribution standing in for accountability. The person on the byline is the person who did the thinking, and the person you can ask about it.

We do not pass off AI writing as our own

We use software every day, including language models, to research, to check and to move faster. We do not publish machine-generated filler under a practitioner’s name and call it authored. Where a tool did meaningful work in a piece, we say so. The judgement, the argument and the words that reach you are ours.

Claims are sourced, and measurement is separated from opinion

When we state a fact, we link to where it comes from. When we share a number from our own work, we say how it was measured and over what period. When something is our reading rather than a measured result, we mark it as opinion. You should never have to guess whether a line is a finding or a point of view.

We are clear about what is measured and what is claimed

Results in our case notes describe what actually moved, on a named metric, over a stated window, for a real engagement. We do not imply a single change caused an outcome it did not, and we do not round a modest result up into a headline. Where we cannot show a client’s figures, we say the example is illustrative rather than dressing it up as proof.

We correct mistakes in public

If a published piece turns out to be wrong, we fix it where it was published and note what changed and when, rather than quietly editing the record. Small typographical fixes are made without ceremony. Anything that changes the meaning, the advice or a number gets a visible correction.

Independence

Our guidance reflects what we would do in your position, not what pays us most. We do not take payment to recommend a tool or a platform, and where we have a commercial relationship with something we mention, we disclose it. If our advice would send you somewhere other than us, we still give it.

Tell us if we have this wrong

If you spot an error, a stale figure or a source that no longer holds up, email hello@roguelogic.co.uk and we will look at it. Holding us to this standard is a favour, not a nuisance.